Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
Ahtman wrote: I'm Always Right and You're Always Wrong - Sean Spicer.
Somehow I envision this poor guy being used in silly videos in the future, like Saddam Hussein's Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf who became known as "Baghdad Bob" and "Comical Ali" for his appearances at press conferences before and during the US invasion of Iraq.
Hmm. Sean Spicer. What nickname could he get for his diplomatic efforts at turning Trump Tweets (tm) into something resembling reasonable statements while both avoiding calling his employer a fool and still not giving any real info on the subject?
God help us when something serious happens and Trump has to act presidential...
A good old war will do it. That's what weak leaders do: let's go to war to show how manly we are and unite the country behind the same flag. Holland did the same in France, didn't last long and it was pretty pointless, but the time he did it helped a bit to boost his popularity for a short while. Then of course it dropped afterwards, but whatever.
For the reasons, you can count on Trump to make up some lies to back it. It doesn't matter how big it is. It will just make Bush to shame with what happened with Irak, that's all.
Mark my words. This administration will go to war sooner or later. And some people will applaud it with both hands.
God help us when something serious happens and Trump has to act presidential...
A good old war will do it. That's what weak leaders do: let's go to war to show how manly we are and unite the country behind the same flag. Holland did the same in France, didn't last long and it was pretty pointless, but the time he did it helped a bit to boost his popularity for a short while. Then of course it dropped afterwards, but whatever.
For the reasons, you can count on Trump to make up some lies to back it. It doesn't matter how big it is. It will just make Bush to shame with what happened with Irak, that's all.
Mark my words. This administration will go to war sooner or later. And some people will applaud it with both hands.
Looking back, I remember the criticism GW Bush got before and during his time as President. He was called an idiot, and much worse, on numerous occasions.
Never thought I'd say this, but I'd have GW Bush back tomorrow rather than put up with Trump for a minute longer. You knew where you stood with Bush.
Trump makes Bush look like FDR in comparison...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Yeah, he's actually getting less push back then party leaders would like. He's not a bad pick, all in all.
Easy E wrote: Considering the circumstances, I think Gorsuch is a fine nominee.
Meanwhile, Merrick Garland (also a fine nominee) is kicking at the sand on the sidelines.
He'd be good to replace Ginsberg or Kennedy.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split from after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
Going around the world starting wars with sovereign nations because we've decided that their political leaders are bad people, bombing their infrastructure, creating a power vacuum and leaving that nation a shambolic, bloody mess in the throes of civil conflict isn't my idea of a reasonable, necessary and beneficial foreign policy. There are plenty of governments out there that sponsor terrorism, there are regimes that conduct genocidal pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights abuses right now, should Trump start dispatching carrier groups around the glob to remove those governments with bombing campaigns and then leave the surviving populace to fend for themselves as best they can?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: You keep on using that word like you know what it means. I do not think it means what you think it means.
*shrug* Then we've reached a fundamental misunderstanding and failure to communicate.
You use ally, as if that doesn't mean a partner in a mutually beneficially alliance but instead means one country can use another to go perpetuate a bombing campaign on somebody the way a manager sends an intern out to get coffee. The US is not the errand boy or leg breaker for our "allies." We don't just go hurt people so that politicians in other nations can keep their hands clean of the mess they want us to create. There was no existential threat to anyone in Libya that needed to be eliminated, it was just EU politicians wanting to flex some muscle that they let go to flab decades ago so they asked us to do it for them and consequently made our PotUS look like a chump.
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with only a bad or worse option to try and manage.
You're changing the subject to Syria to counter an argument against Obama getting us involved in Libya.
If the primary reason for getting us involved in a Syrian civil war is because the Republicans would have criticized Obama if he hadn't then that's really an argument against getting involved at all. It certainly doesn't cast Obama on a good light if he got us militarily involved in Syria just to appease Republicans. Russia is going to support Assad, they have to because they need Assad in power to protect Russian/Gasprom interests and oppose the Qatari pipeline. We're not going to fight a war with aRussia just to get rid of Assad so we shouldn't waste our time money and lives on half measures. We didn't cause the civil war there and we can't stop it so I don't feel like we have any obligation to the Syrian people and I'm not willing to go to war for them.
I've changed nothing. I've previously responded in length to our involvement in Libya, on this website. I'm not going to go there again and the points being made, whether it's Syria, Libya or any of the other foreign policy "failures" being painted on Obama is that the area of the world in question doesn't allow for pretty and tidy results. It just doesn't and all this finger pointing is, well, pointless. And as far as your last bit about our not owing an obligation to the Syrian people, well, I view them as humans first and most of the world does care when their fellow humans are suffering. The difference with us, is that we can maybe do something to help and depending on your view of altruism, should do something to help.
Wasn't it your response to your libertarian POTUS candidate's monumental *derp* on Aleppo that you said something to the effect of, "Aleppo? Who cares? It's just this week's headline."...off on that a bit, I'd say.
We spent a ton of money moving a vast amount of resources halfway around the world for the express purpose of launching a half assed bombing campaign that netted no positive change and prolonged a disastrous civil war and the reasons you've given for that being a worthwhile foreign policy is because Russia was already involved in Syria and because the Republican would criticize Obama if he didn't do something. Getting involved in Syria but not doing nearly enough to actually thwart Russia's propping up of the Assad regime accomplishes nothing other than showing the world that we're only interested in opposing Russian interests with a token effort for the sake of domestic political expediency. How is that a show of strength? We totally could kick Russia's ass but we're not going to, we're going to let Russia keep doing whatever it wants but we're like totally watching them and if Putin's not really careful then we might maybe do something about it, possibly.
As for the humanitarian crisis there, yeah, that's way beyond our ability to fix and we're actively making it worse. We're aiding the anti Assad forces just enough to drag out the conflict creating more death and destruction but not doing enough to actually topple Assad. If we never got involved in Syria then Assad would have won the civil war already with Russia's help. He'd still be in charge, but he's already still in charge and we aren't going to change that, but the violence would already be over. Instead we're contributing to the problem, bombing people we hope are the real bad guys, arming people we hope are the real good guys and doing both ineffectually. In the meantime we let a tiny fraction of 1% of the 22 million Syrians apply for the 18-24 month long vetting process of being accepted as a refugee immigrant to the US. We accepted less than 39K Muslim refugees in total in 2016 and that was the most Muslim refugees ever accepted in the US. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/
We spend billions of dollars bombing their country and prolonging their civil war when the outcome is never in doubt and doesn't pose any serious threat to the US but we allow a handful of refugees from the conflict to immigrate to the US so we're totally helping. Syria isn't a better place now because of our bombing campaigns there. If we were having a positive effect on their country there wouldn't be an ever increasing number of them trying to flee from it.
Yeah, it's a mess. Thanks for confirming what's already been said over and over, and isn't the point of debate. Very insightful. Again, realistically, what was the option before us? Do nothing as you obviously suggest because if we just took a knee "the violence would already be over."? That's a hell of a bit of prescience there. Unfortunately, that doesn't really have any application in the real world.
Engaging in a military conflict that is unsuccessful at achieving any positive outcome for us is a waste of resources. Why are we intervening in the ME if we're not effecting any positive changes there? We're not improving anything over there and we're in advertently making things worse. It's not prescience, it's common sense, we represent that largest military force opposing Assad and aiding the rebels, without us there the resistance drops off dramatically, the civil war ends and Syria resets to being back where they were before we got involved. Assad has been in charge of Syria since 2000 we didn't need to get involved. We've been more of a force for destabilization in the ME than anything else, going back to the 1970s when we backed the Shah of Iran. The more we meddle the worse things get for everyone.
You think we're actually helping the people in Aleppo? We're doing it nothing to help and just making things worse there. We won't intervene with enough force to overcome Assad and his Russian support but we'll give the rebels just enough support to prolong the conflict and perpetuate the humanitarian crisis. We're not accomplishing anything in Syria and we were never going to accomplish anything in Syria but hey at least Obama did something to appease his Republican critics, right?
d-usa wrote: Implying that a 5-4 conservative leaning SCOTUS must be maintained regardless of who is in power?
You think Trump is going to nominate a leftwinger? Thats a big reason why conservatives threw up their hands and voted for him. In an era where government can do anything it wants, Its all about SCOTUS now.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Dunno about that... many red state Democrats are getting hammered in their states to NOT vote for Gorsuch. I think the real key would be how the safe Democrat votes...
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Dunno about that... many red state Democrats are getting hammered in their states to NOT vote for Gorsuch. I think the real key would be how the safe Democrat votes...
Its irrelevant if any Democrats will vote for him. The Nuke option is a full go now. The Dem's opened that Pandora's Box and it won't be closed now.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I'm not saying we should ally with Russia. It's just some things that are worth repeating quite a bit because some people tend to forget about them .
Beside wouldn't advocating alliance with Russia be more of a thing for the right rather than of the left atm?
But yeah, we definitely shouldn't ignore Russia's crime.
Fair enough, I certainly don't want to ignore the shady stuff the US has gotten up to.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
d-usa wrote: Implying that a 5-4 conservative leaning SCOTUS must be maintained regardless of who is in power?
You think Trump is going to nominate a leftwinger? Thats a big reason why conservatives threw up their hands and voted for him. In an era where government can do anything it wants, Its all about SCOTUS now.
d-usa wrote: Implying that a 5-4 conservative leaning SCOTUS must be maintained regardless of who is in power?
You think Trump is going to nominate a leftwinger? Thats a big reason why conservatives threw up their hands and voted for him. In an era where government can do anything it wants, Its all about SCOTUS now.
Then why wasn't he a good replacements for Scalia
Who... Garland?
The question wasn't whether it was good enough... it was the fact that they wanted the next President to fill it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/21 15:33:03
d-usa wrote: Implying that a 5-4 conservative leaning SCOTUS must be maintained regardless of who is in power?
You think Trump is going to nominate a leftwinger? Thats a big reason why conservatives threw up their hands and voted for him. In an era where government can do anything it wants, Its all about SCOTUS now.
Then why wasn't he a good replacements for Scalia
Are you serious? Scalia was the arch original constructionist. Replacing him would have turned the SCOTUS 5-4 anti Bill of Rights. But if you want to keep the balance he would be a good replacement for those two. If you want to shift it 6-3 conservative you don't.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: That was the argument against the first EO where it issued priority to Christians from those areas.
The application to the Establishment Clause has generally been avoid at the SCoTUS level, as it's understood that Congress (and by delegation to Executive, the Potus) has the power to determine what/how immigration is conducted.
Dude, you flat out said the Establishment Clause was not part of this ruling. I showed you, from your own link, that it was the fundamental basis for this decision. And now you try to walk it back, talking about how the first ruling was criticised for using it, and that the SC doesn't tend to use it in immigration. Dude, you were wrong. You said a thing that was wrong. Own up.
That's where the argument will land in SCoTUS. On the one hand, the EO is legal based on existings laws that empowers the Potus and on the other, this judge ruling for an injunction by applying the Establishment doctrine.
Well obviously it's going to land in the SC. That's quite beside the point that you claimed the judge in this case said it was a lawful order, when that was a totally misleading reading, based on taking the judge out of context and ignoring how the Establishement Clause is applied. Once again, your claim about the case was wrong, I showed you how it was wrong, and now you're trying to skate on. Own up.
Just ask yourself this...
If the states can claim damages in this regard... why is it that states in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas get bitch slapped when they tried to sue the Feds over immigrations.
What? Texas was found to have standing in its case against DAPA.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Dunno about that... many red state Democrats are getting hammered in their states to NOT vote for Gorsuch. I think the real key would be how the safe Democrat votes...
Its irrelevant if any Democrats will vote for him. The Nuke option is a full go now. The Dem's opened that Pandora's Box and it won't be closed now.
Yep. It was the Democrats who refused to even hold a hearing for Garland Merrick last year.
Yep. It's all the Democrats' fault. How dare those lefties try to introduce someone!
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split from after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
Going around the world starting wars with sovereign nations because we've decided that their political leaders are bad people, bombing their infrastructure, creating a power vacuum and leaving that nation a shambolic, bloody mess in the throes of civil conflict isn't my idea of a reasonable, necessary and beneficial foreign policy. There are plenty of governments out there that sponsor terrorism, there are regimes that conduct genocidal pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights abuses right now, should Trump start dispatching carrier groups around the glob to remove those governments with bombing campaigns and then leave the surviving populace to fend for themselves as best they can?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: You keep on using that word like you know what it means. I do not think it means what you think it means.
*shrug* Then we've reached a fundamental misunderstanding and failure to communicate.
You use ally, as if that doesn't mean a partner in a mutually beneficially alliance but instead means one country can use another to go perpetuate a bombing campaign on somebody the way a manager sends an intern out to get coffee. The US is not the errand boy or leg breaker for our "allies." We don't just go hurt people so that politicians in other nations can keep their hands clean of the mess they want us to create. There was no existential threat to anyone in Libya that needed to be eliminated, it was just EU politicians wanting to flex some muscle that they let go to flab decades ago so they asked us to do it for them and consequently made our PotUS look like a chump.
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with only a bad or worse option to try and manage.
You're changing the subject to Syria to counter an argument against Obama getting us involved in Libya.
If the primary reason for getting us involved in a Syrian civil war is because the Republicans would have criticized Obama if he hadn't then that's really an argument against getting involved at all. It certainly doesn't cast Obama on a good light if he got us militarily involved in Syria just to appease Republicans. Russia is going to support Assad, they have to because they need Assad in power to protect Russian/Gasprom interests and oppose the Qatari pipeline. We're not going to fight a war with aRussia just to get rid of Assad so we shouldn't waste our time money and lives on half measures. We didn't cause the civil war there and we can't stop it so I don't feel like we have any obligation to the Syrian people and I'm not willing to go to war for them.
I've changed nothing. I've previously responded in length to our involvement in Libya, on this website. I'm not going to go there again and the points being made, whether it's Syria, Libya or any of the other foreign policy "failures" being painted on Obama is that the area of the world in question doesn't allow for pretty and tidy results. It just doesn't and all this finger pointing is, well, pointless. And as far as your last bit about our not owing an obligation to the Syrian people, well, I view them as humans first and most of the world does care when their fellow humans are suffering. The difference with us, is that we can maybe do something to help and depending on your view of altruism, should do something to help.
Wasn't it your response to your libertarian POTUS candidate's monumental *derp* on Aleppo that you said something to the effect of, "Aleppo? Who cares? It's just this week's headline."...off on that a bit, I'd say.
We spent a ton of money moving a vast amount of resources halfway around the world for the express purpose of launching a half assed bombing campaign that netted no positive change and prolonged a disastrous civil war and the reasons you've given for that being a worthwhile foreign policy is because Russia was already involved in Syria and because the Republican would criticize Obama if he didn't do something. Getting involved in Syria but not doing nearly enough to actually thwart Russia's propping up of the Assad regime accomplishes nothing other than showing the world that we're only interested in opposing Russian interests with a token effort for the sake of domestic political expediency. How is that a show of strength? We totally could kick Russia's ass but we're not going to, we're going to let Russia keep doing whatever it wants but we're like totally watching them and if Putin's not really careful then we might maybe do something about it, possibly.
As for the humanitarian crisis there, yeah, that's way beyond our ability to fix and we're actively making it worse. We're aiding the anti Assad forces just enough to drag out the conflict creating more death and destruction but not doing enough to actually topple Assad. If we never got involved in Syria then Assad would have won the civil war already with Russia's help. He'd still be in charge, but he's already still in charge and we aren't going to change that, but the violence would already be over. Instead we're contributing to the problem, bombing people we hope are the real bad guys, arming people we hope are the real good guys and doing both ineffectually. In the meantime we let a tiny fraction of 1% of the 22 million Syrians apply for the 18-24 month long vetting process of being accepted as a refugee immigrant to the US. We accepted less than 39K Muslim refugees in total in 2016 and that was the most Muslim refugees ever accepted in the US. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/
We spend billions of dollars bombing their country and prolonging their civil war when the outcome is never in doubt and doesn't pose any serious threat to the US but we allow a handful of refugees from the conflict to immigrate to the US so we're totally helping. Syria isn't a better place now because of our bombing campaigns there. If we were having a positive effect on their country there wouldn't be an ever increasing number of them trying to flee from it.
Yeah, it's a mess. Thanks for confirming what's already been said over and over, and isn't the point of debate. Very insightful. Again, realistically, what was the option before us? Do nothing as you obviously suggest because if we just took a knee "the violence would already be over."? That's a hell of a bit of prescience there. Unfortunately, that doesn't really have any application in the real world.
Engaging in a military conflict that is unsuccessful at achieving any positive outcome for us is a waste of resources. Why are we intervening in the ME if we're not effecting any positive changes there? We're not improving anything over there and we're in advertently making things worse. It's not prescience, it's common sense, we represent that largest military force opposing Assad and aiding the rebels, without us there the resistance drops off dramatically, the civil war ends and Syria resets to being back where they were before we got involved. Assad has been in charge of Syria since 2000 we didn't need to get involved. We've been more of a force for destabilization in the ME than anything else, going back to the 1970s when we backed the Shah of Iran. The more we meddle the worse things get for everyone.
You think we're actually helping the people in Aleppo? We're doing it nothing to help and just making things worse there. We won't intervene with enough force to overcome Assad and his Russian support but we'll give the rebels just enough support to prolong the conflict and perpetuate the humanitarian crisis. We're not accomplishing anything in Syria and we were never going to accomplish anything in Syria but hey at least Obama did something to appease his Republican critics, right?
If you want to look for causes of destabilization in the ME, you're going to have to open that history book just a bit wider than to the -70's with the Shah. That may have been one of the more pivotal points in recent history that has shaped the path we're on now, but it was just another brick in a very convoluted wall that's been getting built long before our country existed.
Your view continues to have one critical lapse in observation. You keep repeating it's a mess and we don't commit enough to effect a true change. Well, once again, no gak! I've asked you repeatedly, what's the alternative option and you provide nothing but a parroting of what you've already said which reaffirms what's been stated and isn't the point of debate.
A) You bemoan the billions of dollars being wasted without effect. Okay, let's review the alternatives. Do nothing and hope Assad and the Russians don't go all Chechnya on the opposition? Or go full tilt for effect and level the country risking, and probably getting, a squaring off with Russia? Tactical, limited intervention suddenly doesn't seem so gakky, now does it? Should this more "effective" effort be pursued, a few billion dollars will be the least of anybody's concern.
B) You claim through your prescience that if we'd done nothing the suffering would be over by now. Okay, let's review the alternatives. So we do nothing and, as above, the story so far shows that Assad and the Russians have absolutely no problem using the most diabolical means at their disposal for "dealing" with the opposition. Alternatively, we strike back at every barrel bomb and chemical weapon attack the Russians/Syrians do with overwhelming force and rather than a front for the war, we've got a global situation. I can just hear the suffering dissipate as we speak.
C) You state that we're not accomplishing anything in Syria...and this touches on the whole canard you spin about our not being able to help the civilians. You do understand that the ceasefires which have been helping abate the horrors in Syria are due to one thing and that is the fact that Assad and the Russians face an opposition that they haven't yet beaten and part of that opposition is directly due to our involvement. No involvement, less opposition. Less opposition, no ceasefire. The logic kind of follows...
And I hate to break down that closing partisan swipe, but this isn't a political party thing, it's an adult realization that we don't live in a dream world where isolationism is an option. Conflicts, particularly the ones we find ourselves in, don't allow us the results we often prefer. This is largely due to the simple reality that we, more often than not, find ourselves fighting stateless and borderless enemies, often with ties to regimes and nations that seek to cause us harm. Our responses, in light of this, must be measured and involve a certain restraint and, accordingly, will not always be as effective as we'd like and will be, accordingly, very frustrating for some. That said, I have no doubt that the hide-your-head-in-the-sand isolationist strategy, however, would be exponentially worse on all kinds of levels.
whembly wrote: That was the argument against the first EO where it issued priority to Christians from those areas.
The application to the Establishment Clause has generally been avoid at the SCoTUS level, as it's understood that Congress (and by delegation to Executive, the Potus) has the power to determine what/how immigration is conducted.
Dude, you flat out said the Establishment Clause was not part of this ruling. I showed you, from your own link, that it was the fundamental basis for this decision. And now you try to walk it back, talking about how the first ruling was criticised for using it, and that the SC doesn't tend to use it in immigration. Dude, you were wrong. You said a thing that was wrong. Own up.
That's where the argument will land in SCoTUS. On the one hand, the EO is legal based on existings laws that empowers the Potus and on the other, this judge ruling for an injunction by applying the Establishment doctrine.
Well obviously it's going to land in the SC. That's quite beside the point that you claimed the judge in this case said it was a lawful order, when that was a totally misleading reading, based on taking the judge out of context and ignoring how the Establishement Clause is applied. Once again, your claim about the case was wrong, I showed you how it was wrong, and now you're trying to skate on. Own up.
I said the Establishment Clause shouldn't be applied... as, it'd nuke just about all of the existing immigration laws.
When it goes to SCoTUS, they could simply strike down the 9th's ruling and adopt 9th's dissent as the SCoTUS opinion.
Just ask yourself this...
If the states can claim damages in this regard... why is it that states in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas get bitch slapped when they tried to sue the Feds over immigrations.
What? Texas was found to have standing in its case against DAPA.
Those states tried to build walls & enforce the border.
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Dunno about that... many red state Democrats are getting hammered in their states to NOT vote for Gorsuch. I think the real key would be how the safe Democrat votes...
Its irrelevant if any Democrats will vote for him. The Nuke option is a full go now. The Dem's opened that Pandora's Box and it won't be closed now.
Yep. It was the Democrats who refused to even hold a hearing for Garland Merrick last year.
Yep. It's all the Democrats' fault. How dare those lefties try to introduce someone!
No. That's the GOP. As the majority of the Senate, that's their prerogative whether or not the should hold confirmation hearings for Garland.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/21 15:50:48
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped.
Do you remember when, once Republicans had to slowly start admitting that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and they started fishing around for some other way to justify that war? The most common argument was that they deposed Hussein, who was a genocidal dictator that they were still somehow pretending was linked to 9/11.
But with Libya we have Gaddafi, who not only directly sponsored the Lockerbie bombing but was found guilty of such in court, but who was also in the process of gearing up to massacre whole populations that were resisting him... and suddenly the Republicans want nothing to do with that.
The hypocrisy is shameful, really.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
Watch your interpretation of the context here. Yes, it involved the US for the reasons mentioned, but it's not an actual territorial matter for the US in the same context as it is for the myriad of SE Asian nations that have overlapping claim to many of the geographic areas in question.
The point of my post was that I don't view our response to China's island building as a failure, as stated in the post I responded to. I believe our response was spot on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/21 15:57:00
BigWaaagh wrote: China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
The South China Sea is international waters that China attemted to claim ownership of, and when their claim was rejected by international courts they undertook a process of taking them anyway. It absolutely involves the US, and every other country that thinks 'take whatever you can get away with' is a terrible way to run the planet.
What Obama did in addressing this issue, maintaining a hard diplomatic stance and undertaking freedom of navigation, was the right course of action. Push any further and he would have risked war, do any less and you're letting China use brute force to ignore the rule of law.
This is quite literally, damn if you do... damn if you don't.
Not sure how Obama... or Trump should respond.
Other than, sending a full pacific fleet through the contested waters and daring China to react? Even that's... dangerous as feth.
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped.
Do you remember when, once Republicans had to slowly start admitting that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and they started fishing around for some other way to justify that war? The most common argument was that they deposed Hussein, who was a genocidal dictator that they were still somehow pretending was linked to 9/11.
But with Libya we have Gaddafi, who not only directly sponsored the Lockerbie bombing but was found guilty of such in court, but who was also in the process of gearing up to massacre whole populations that were resisting him... and suddenly the Republicans want nothing to do with that.
The hypocrisy is shameful, really.
But it's consistent and that has to be admired.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/21 18:42:18
whembly wrote: I said the Establishment Clause shouldn't be applied... as, it'd nuke just about all of the existing immigration laws.
No, you didn't. This is what you said.
"The Establishment Clause has NOT been applied."
That claim was 100% wrong, false, incorrect, utterly at odds with the verdict you linked here yourself.
Once again, own up.
Those states tried to build walls & enforce the border.
Don't try and dance away. You asked why in those cases states were 'bitchslapped' for not having standing. Except standing was granted. Your understanding was wrong.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: I said the Establishment Clause shouldn't be applied... as, it'd nuke just about all of the existing immigration laws.
No, you didn't. This is what you said. "The Establishment Clause has NOT been applied."
That claim was 100% wrong, false, incorrect, utterly at odds with the verdict you linked here yourself.
Once again, own up.
I went back... you're right I did state that. I was wrong in this regard.
Those states tried to build walls & enforce the border.
Don't try and dance away. You asked why in those cases states were 'bitchslapped' for not having standing. Except standing was granted. Your understanding was wrong.
Standing was granted in this EO because the states were able to prove harm based on this Executive branch's immigration policy.
Standing was NOT granted to those states, even though I believe those states had a stronger case for standing than this current one, when these states wanted to actually enforce immigration laws (ie, patrol border, build walls, ignore DAPA). The reason TRO was granted to DAPA, was that there was no federal statute that the Obama administration could justify for the DAPA policy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/21 16:03:51
jmurph wrote: I am kind of surprised Gorsuch is getting so much pushback. He seems eminently qualified and certainly no more ideological than Scalia was (and far more principled than Thomas). He has upheld limits on government action in the past, which would seem to be a good thing and is a pretty strong textualist.
I wonder if maybe it indicates more of Trump's weakness politically than any problems with Gorsuch? Also some tit-for-tat for Republicans stalling Obama's solid pick.
He's not getting pushback. The Democrats were always going to object, even if Trump nominated Hillary Clinton. He will pass without problem.
Dunno about that... many red state Democrats are getting hammered in their states to NOT vote for Gorsuch. I think the real key would be how the safe Democrat votes...
Its irrelevant if any Democrats will vote for him. The Nuke option is a full go now. The Dem's opened that Pandora's Box and it won't be closed now.
Yep. It was the Democrats who refused to even hold a hearing for Garland Merrick last year.
Yep. It's all the Democrats' fault. How dare those lefties try to introduce someone!
No its irrelevant because they imposed the 51 rule.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
.
